Article
31 of the Constitution guarantees the right of the public
to access information of a public interest:
A
person's right of access to any information of public
interest cannot be restricted. The public authorities,
according to their competence, shall be bound to provide
for correct information to citizens on public affairs
and matters of personal interest. The right to information
shall not be prejudicial to the protection of the young
or to national security.(1)
•
Combined gross enrolment ratio for primary,
secondary and tertiary schools, 2002/03: 71.6
•
GDP per capita (PPP US$) (HDI), 2003: 7,277
•
Total population (millions), 2003: 22
•
Total fertility rate (births per woman), 2000-05:
1.3
•
Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births),
2003: 20
•
Net primary enrolment ratio (%), 2002/03: 89
•
HIV prevalence (% ages 15-49), 2003: <0.1
[<0.2]
•
Undernourished people (% of total population),
2000/03: N/A
•
Population with sustainable access to an improved
water source (%), 2002: 57
Source:
UN Development Program, Human Development Reports
Data
The
Law
Regarding Free Access to Information of Public Interest
was approved in October 2001.(2) The implementing
regulations of the law state, "free and unrestrained
access to information of public interest shall be the rule
and limitation of access shall be the exemption."(3)
It allows for any person to ask for information from public
authorities and state companies. The authorities must respond
in 10 days.
There
are exemptions for national security, public safety and
public order, deliberations of authorities, commercial or
financial interests, personal information, proceedings during
criminal or disciplinary investigations, judicial proceedings,
and information "prejudicial to the measures of protecting
the youth."
Those
denied can appeal to the agency concerned or to a court.
Public employees can be disciplined for refusing to disclose
information. The People's
Advocate (Ombudsman) can also hear complaints and make
recommendations.(4) In 2004, the office
received 403 complaints related to the denial of information.(5)
Authorities
must also publish a wide variety of basic information about
their structures and activities including their register
of "documents in the public interest." They are
required to set up specialized divisions to deal with the
Act.
According
to the Agency for Government Strategies, there were over
710,000 requests (mostly oral) in 2005. Two percent of the
requests were denied which resulted in 1846 administrative
appeals (down from 6,154 in 2004). 55 percent of the appeals
resulted in the decision being overturned, 33 percent were
rejected and 11 percent were settled. There were 424 (up
from 394) court cases.(6)
The
Institute for Public Policies describes access by NGOs to
information as "very difficult" citing misuse
of classification to hide categories of information, excessive
fees and refusing to provide information in the forms requested.(7)
The Association for the Defense of Human Rights in Romania-Helsinki
Committee (APADOR-CH) reported that most public institutions
respond to requests, although there are still problems with
complex or "delicate" requests. There are also
ongoing problems with agencies charging excessive copying
fees. This is significantly better than the 2003 report
where they stated that "In practice, the access to
information of public interest is denied and the law is
inoperative."
APADOR
has also made a detailed list of recommended changes needed
to the Act and other related laws to improve access. Those
changes include modifying the Ministry of Information, giving
the FOI law primary effect over other laws, limiting exemptions,
and revising the Classified Information, Archive and Data
Protection Acts.(8)
The
Law
on Protecting Classified Information was enacted in
April 2002 following pressure from NATO to adopt a law before
Romania could join the alliance.(9) There
was considerable controversy over the adoption of the law,
amid claims that the government was misleading the Parliament
on the NATO requirements (which are not public) to extend
the scope of the law beyond what was required. One particularly
controversial provision creates a level of classification
called "office secret", which is defined as any
information that could affect the interest of a legal person,
be it private or state owned, which cannot be appealed.
The Office of the National Registry of State Secret Information
keeps the registers of secret information. The National
Authority for Security maintains the controls on NATO information.
The Criminal Code prohibits the possession of classified
information by those not authorized to have it.(10)
Two journalists were charged in February 2006 for illegally
receiving classified information. The Supreme Court ordered
the release of one who was detained for several days.(11)
The
1999 Law
on the Access to the Personal File and the Disclosure of
the Securitate as a Political Police allows Romanian
citizens to access their Securitate (the former secret police)
files.(12) It also allows public access
to the files of those aspiring for public office and other
information relating to the activities of the Securitate.
The law set up the National
Council for the Search of Security Archives (CNSAS)
to administer the archives. The Council's activities were
limited for years as the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI)
refused to hand over the files of its predecessor. A reported
12 kilometers of files were transferred to the Council in
2005 following a presidential order but many remain in the
hands of the SRI which claims that they would harm national
security if released.(13) The Council
has also been hampered by regular crises over its leadership,
some leading to mass public protests, and claims of misuse
of files. The new head of the Council said in April 2006
that many of the Securitate files were destroyed in 1989
and called on the SRI to hand over all remaining files.(14)
The Prime Minister also called for the release of all of
the Communist-era files. The European Court of Human Rights
ruled in 2000 that the Romanian Intelligence Service retention
and use of Securitate files that falsely accused a person
of being a member of a fascist party fifty years before
was a violation of the ECHR.(15)
The
Law
on Decisional Transparency in Public Administration
was approved in December 2002 and went into effect in April
2003. It requires meetings of government bodies to open,
the disclosure of information about pending activities,
and requires the bodies to invite citizens to participate
in decisions.(16) According the Agency
for Government Strategies, there were 8769 requests for
information on draft laws and 7140 recommendations received,
of which 64 percent were included in the draft acts. There
were 131 cases brought in court against violations of the
law in 2005, nearly 30 percent of which resulted in decisions
for the individual and 31 percent for the government body.
The Agency expressed concern that the low numbers indicated
a "low level of civic involvement" but did note
an eleven percent increase in recommendations from civil
society groups.
The
Law
on National Archives sets rules on access to information
in archives. Information can be withheld for up to 100 years.(20)
Romania
signed the Aarhus Convention in June 1998 and ratified it
in July 2000. Governmental Decision no. 878/2005 on public
access to environmental information implements EU Directive
2003/4/EC and sets rules on access.(21)
19
JUNE 2003
ROMANIA: Human Rights NGO Sues Prosecutor General RFE/RL
Newsline reports that the Association for the Defense
of Human Rights in Romania-Helsinki Committee (APADOR-CH)
has sued Prosecutor-General Joita Tanase because of his
office's refusal to release information pertaining to phone
tapping and other forms of surveillance of Romanian citizens.
The
Romanian nongovernmental organization sued Tanase in April
and a court ordered him to release the information. However,
Tanase refused to do so on the grounds that this would threaten
national security. He then appealed the verdict before the
Supreme Court by making use of a judicial instrument called
"extraordinary appeal." The instrument -- a legal
holdover from the communist era -- allows the prosecutor-general
to cancel court decisions, even when the court ruling is
final, and to order a new trial.
APADOR-CH
said it is "very serious when a state institution does
not comply with the law," adding, "We asked for
figures, for statistics, not for names."
6.
Agency for Government Strategies, Report concerning
the applying of Law no. 544/2001 concerning the access at
the public interest information during year 2005.
7.
The Institute for Public Policies, Facts and flaws facing
NGOs when confronted with public institutions refusing to
grant free access to public interest information, 9 February
2006.
8.
See APADOR, Limits of Access to Information in Romania
- The Necessity of Certain Legislative Correlations.
18.
Law no. 677/2001 for the Protection of Persons concerning
the Processing of Personal Data and Free Circulation of
Such Data. http://www.avp.ro/leg677en.html
21.
Governmental
Decision no. 878/2005 on public access to environmental
information, 28 July 2005 replacing Resolution no. 1115/2002
of 10 October 2002 regarding the free access to the information
regarding the environment. http://www.apador.org/en/legi/hot_1115_2002_e.rtf
"The
country has a transparency law that provides for
transparency of decisionmaking. While the transparency
law does not specifically require the Government
to provide documents or information in response
to citizens' requests, a separate law regarding
freedom of information requires all public institutions
to answer such inquiries. In practice, political
decisionmaking was typically carried out with
little transparency. The transparency law requires
all central and local elected or appointed public
administration authorities to make public draft
laws and to consult with citizens and NGOs; however,
authorities in areas of national defense and security,
public order, and country's political and economic
strategic interests, and other areas with classified
information are exempted. In most cases, the authorities
considered consultations with the civil society
a formality. NGOs reported that, even when asked
their opinion during the year on a draft law,
the Government often ignored their proposals.
The press is not allowed to attend the debates
of the parliamentary commissions. Some ministries,
such as the Ministry of Information Technology
and Communications, complied with the consultation
requirements, but not all did so."
1)
Voice and Accountability: 0.36
2) Political Instability and Violence: 0.22
3) Government Effectiveness: -0.15
4) Regulatory Burden: -0.06
5) Rule of Law: -0.18
6) Control of Corruption: -0.25
